Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Another New Paradigm: Change

I think after the long, long 2008 everyone is looking for a little bit of change in 2009. I think we all could do with a nice dose of order and confidence. We all should have the opportunity to reach some level of confidence in our government. Sure many of us on both sides have had some really heated disputes in the last few years, but "government" is just simply not supposed to what it has become.

We have been promised "change", but in reality we have heard that mantra before. Maybe not so branded and marketed in the fashion it has been in the last year, but we heard in 2000 with Bush and we certainly heard it in 2006 when the Democrats took control of Congress during that so-called "change" election.

But just what can we expect?

I was looking at things very optimistically until of course I just so happen to tune in to MSNBC the past few days. I have never in my life seen the media play so much or hard the expectations game. Its as if they are setting the ground game on that network for some future news storyline. I have never heard so many pundits and politicians use the same line, as in "common mistake" regarding a error the potential Secretary had made with his taxes, it was as if the storyline was written in some back office of the studio and transmitted via text through every blackberry it could reach. Seriously, like 100 people all had the same thing to say about this issue regarding the next Treasury Secretary. The same talking point.

But we have seen the Circus that is Washington come confirmation hearing-time in every new administration, but when MSNBC dives in to reinvent or revise history to form some political paradigm for the sole benefit of some future action or result it gets a little surreal frankly.

Today, Chris Mathews attempted to put the blame of 9/11 on Bush after his nine months in office by stating Bush was the sitting President and needed to be held accountable and did not keep America safe. I wonder just how many Americans actually believe this regarding 9/11?

And if so, will these same people now hold Obama to the same standard? Thats the real question when we talk about "change". Bush was held accoutable for everything that happened with every aspect of policy and those shaping policy. Case in point would have to be the treatment of terror suspects by those soldiers and interrogators. Bush was blamed along with Rumsfeld very heavily for that treatment and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann used the pics that came out of that episode as attacks directly on Bush. Maybe its true that the man in charge is to blame for all that goes on whether he knows about it or not, but I am beginning to question whether Obama will be held to the same standard. Afterall, does it not poorly reflect on a leader when two people he has chosen to be part of the cabinet have ended up with egg on their face. First Richardson who in my view nothing really has been proven yet and than the Treasury Secretary to be and his obvious failure to pay taxes on his income.

Hey Chris Mathews, whats up? Were these folks not properly "vetted"? I mean you and MSNBC had a field day with the McCain camp about vetting. Just asking? Why is it not a reflection of Obama that his slections are facing such issues? Sure we are all human and no ones perfect, but does Obama face zero accountability for any of this? I assure you that if these had been Republican selections the storyline would be much different than "common mistakes".

Then of course we have today, MSNBC pinning 9/11 on Bush and dismissing any accountability for the policies that Bill Clinton had in place when he turned over the White House to George Bush. I could get around that view if those holding it were willing to apply the same to Obama in the next nine months. MSNBC completely ignores the dismantling of our services, both military and intelligence, during the Clinton administration. Flat out ignores it. In the view of Mathews, Bush should have apparently changed the policies in place and by not doing so is "accountable" for 9/11. But then since he did not change them Mr. Mathews, doesn't that prove that Bill Clinton's policies failed our country as well? Afterall, Clinton put them in place and your contention is Bush did not change them. If they were such effective policy why would Bush had to have changed them? He didn't. The result? Another attack on the World Trade Center.

Remind me again Mr. Mathews what was the size of the military in 1992 compared with 2000? How many division in the Army were reduced exactly? Remind me what policy did we have after the first attack on the World Trade Center, something Mathews has never held Clinton accountable since Feb. 1993. Zilch. Mathews rational is that Clinton had only been in office a few weeks while Bush was in for nine months and could have changed policy to protect the country. Again, change whose policy exactly?

How is it that MSNBC is making it very clear that nine months from now this will still be Bush's economy and that Obama must continue with the bailouts that began under Bush three months ago but share in none of the responsibility for doing so. If Obama continues them will he be held accountable if they fail to bring us out of recession or will they continue to place it all at Bush's feet? If at the end of the 3rd Quarter FY 2009 we are worse off will it fall on Obama or will Mathews dismiss it eventhough he would have applied a very different application to Bush?

So at what point does this become Obama's Washington? At what point does the "change" being delivered be attibuted to Obama? If the bailouts work, will Obama be given the parade in the media as being the orchestrator and if they fail will they simply just demonize Bush more? I wonder.

One thing is for sure for all the talk and rhetoric, what hasn't changed are the faces of those involved with all of this in Washington save Obama. The lobbying level has been raised and its the same folks at the circus pulling the strings behind the scenes to be sure. And to top it off, the insider elite media circles are pretty much the same as well, the difference being their guy is now center ring of the Circus.

Pay attention to how much they build up all the things that are bad in the world and with the economy and ask yourself if the media on behalf of the Obama administration is not playing the expectation game on behalf of Obama.

It reminds of the constant barrage of Iraq in the news in 2005, everything bad bad bad. And now its as if they don't even have an Iraq desk anymore. They would really like to cover the Gaza situation better if they could, but Isreal determined after learning how the US media so negatively impacted the perception of Iraq that they kept the media out of Gaza.

Well all except Joe the Plumber that is. (ha ha) You gotta think that just bites those media elites in the a** over at MSNBC.


RivahLover said...

Heck ya, Joe the Plumber as a correspondent. lets get the tightwods out of the media who think just because they went to Columbia they deserve something. Anyone can be anything they want to be in America and its time those elitists up the road deal with it.
Afterall, Obama became President afterall.

GMU410 said...

I have seen a bit of it as well. Little has changed in Washington; as Bon Jovi said "Only the Names of Changed". The media is simply aweful now. Not just the left either. The entertainment value of the op ed has usurped true journalism.
There has become very little differecne between Rush and those on TV like Mathews and Olbermann. Podcasts as well are changing the media with a format that will permit what was controlled by journalists to now be controlled by those with entertainment producers. Hardly could anyone defend Olbermann has a journalist anymore than Rush, but then Rush has never claimed to be one.
I think it would be nice if the media wore patches like NASCAR to make it even easier to see exactly who it is they are promoting.